If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

just read this

Sigma 50mm f/2.8 EX Macro ($230) – A good bang for the buck. This lens renders life size images (1:1) as opposed to the Canon model which only has 0.5x magnification (1:2). Because it is a "budget lens," it lacks any form of USM/HSM, so focusing is slow. But what do you expect for $200?

Tamron 90mm f/2.8 Macro ($400) – Popular telephoto macro. The Canon/Nikon 100mm version is better but costs nearly 50% more. Similar in usage to the Sigma below.

Sigma 105mm f/2.8 EX Macro ($350) – Popular telephoto macro. The Canon/Nikon 100mm version is better but costs nearly 50% more. This is a steal for what it costs.

Sigma 180mm f/2.8 EX APO Macro HSM ($650) - Has some issues with focusing, but the sharpness is undeniable. Great alternative to the more expensive Canon/Nikon versions. Sigma also makes a popular 150mm macro lens if 180mm is a bit too long.

Summary: It's hard to go wrong with any dedicated macro lens. Just pick the focal lengths you need, and you're set!

Phoenix

I bought a Phoenix 100mm that you can shoot at 2:1 or has a teleconverter that shoots 1:1. It isn't a real expensive lens, so if you are on a budget (like me), it costs about $150. I bought mine at adorama.com, but a co-worker of mine bought his at b&h. You can check out my home page at the link below, as I have 2 or 3 macro photos on there I used with the Phoenix lens on my D50.......doug

Anyone saying that the Tamron 90mm f2.8 is nt as good as the Nikon 105mm or Canon 100mm does not know what they are talking about. The USM of the Canon is very nice and fast though, but does not improve image quality. The Tamron tops the Nikon, and also it is a lot nicer to use (easy switching between manual and auto focus, very nice manual focus mechanics (very precise to operate).

If you need to be careful with your budget, get a 50mm Sigma. If you want a the best lens for under 500$, get the Tamron 90mm. If you want a Nikon, get the 60mm f2.8 micro. It bests the 105mm in image quality.

Thanks

Actually, according to the tests at photozone.de, the Tamron 90mm f/2.8 ($449) is close to the AF Nikkor 105mm f/2.8 ($659), but at f/2.8 is considerably softer. After f/4 they are very similar with the Nikkor edging out the Tamron by a wisker in sharpness.

Well, not all tests rate the 105mm as good. Colorfoto found it to be less sharp and contrasty (tested both on DX2 and D200 I think), and Digital Camera World also preferred the Tamron 90mm above the Nikon 105, although they were not tested on the same camera (sigma and nikon on a nikon, Canon and tamron on a Canon).